18 ms·
A Year of Tech Solidarity
- megaman22 9y agoFor the most part, its safer not to stick your head up. There's a real chilling effect in action, and for the sake of your career, it's better to keep your opinions to yourself, lest the torches and pitchforks be directed at you.
- lkrubner 9y agoThat's always been true of all organizing efforts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_Worl... "The extremely high rate of IWW membership turnover during this era (estimated at 133% per decade) makes it difficult for historians to state membership totals with any certainty, as workers tended to join the IWW in large numbers for relatively short periods (e.g., during labor strikes and periods of generalized economic distress)." The question is why union efforts do so well in some eras, and so badly in other eras. And why the workers become militant in some eras, but not other eras.
- pmoriarty 9y agoPeople in other countries routinely face much greater threats of reprisal than those faced by most activists in the US. In other countries you have people resisting in the face of totalitarian regimes which brook no dissent under threat of death or torture for activists and their families. Yet people still resist. As far as I'm aware, we're still far from a state of affairs where joining a union in the US means facing those kinds of risks. Yes, it might affect your career negatively -- but it might also affect it positively, as there are among us people who actually look at union membership as something to be proud of rather than hide. Yes, there are libertarians and economic conservatives who froth at the mouth at the very mention of a union, but I haven't heard of many of them actually going as far as killing people for joining unions in recent decades. So what kind of risks are you realistically going to face if you join a union?
- Anticapitalist 9y agoRealistically it seems the impediment is perceived loss of comfort from loss of income.
- watwut 9y agoThat escalated quickly. From chilling effect for the sake of the career to torture and killing.
- soundwave106 9y agoIn late 19th to early 20th century in America (and some other places), union membership actually could be a life or death proposition. Back then, violence went so far, particularly around mining industries, at times to literally be called as warfare and battles. Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Labor_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Labor_Wars etc. At this point in America, push-back against organized labor (or in fact most other activism) doesn't reach this level. In some countries, however, activism of any kind is still potentially on this level of risk.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dtornabene 9y ago"for the most part its safer to watch others being targeted, its better to deaden yourself and empty yourself of all empathy lest you do anything at all of substance in this world"
- crdoconnor 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
- microcolonel 9y agoPlease, for the love of god, don't unionize me.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- flukus 9y agoThat's OK, just continue to work as a contractor where you pay your own holidays, sick leave, etc. Don't expect any of the benefits unionized workers win to come your way.
- rectang 9y agoWell, it turns out that wages for non-unionized jobs rise in the vicinity of active unions. So even those who oppose unionization may benefit.
- huffpopo 9y agoUnions use all kinds of unpleasant coercion to 'encourage' people to join them including black listing of scabs and companies that use them.
- dang 9y agoWould you please not post unsubstantive comments here, let alone on divisive topics? If you can't take the time to post thoughtfully, please don't post.
- microcolonel 9y agoI felt the piece implied that organization is a universal good, to be desired by all workers. My comment was intended to register that at least one person, my self, does not want to be part of a union, or put in a position to choose between being employed with a union or unemployed without (due to unions bullying and leveraging companies to coerce membership). I guess I could've used more words, and less emphatic language, I can't do anything about it this point. And for what it's worth, the votes did ping-pong around quite a bit, which means that at least some people understood the point I was making in so few words, and felt it was worth promoting.
- Alex3917 9y agoIt's interesting that the efforts to kick money out of tech are getting more traction than the efforts to unionize, even though unionization is by far the less extreme option.
- SoylentOrange 9y agoI feel like tech workers are already highly engaged, just very selectively with the causes that matter to the tech world. A good example of this is EFF. EFF has a huge presence both in the community and at every industry event I've ever been to. Most tech people I know donate to them. There is also the FSF, numerous hacker camps and conferences aimed at women (Grace Hopper Celebration, etc). I'm very skeptical on the need for a broad coalition of tech professionals.
- wz1000 9y agoThe power that EFF and FSF are able to wield is miniscule in comparison to what is possible with a broad, industry wide union of tech workers.
- tptacek 9y agoEFF and FSF aren't politically neutral in the broader sense. EFF is broadly libertarian, and FSF is, from what I can tell, generally leftist. Neither of those are bad things in and of themselves, but you should be aware before deciding to collaborate with them.
- Alex3917 9y agoAlso the EFF is aimed at protecting the rights of people who communicate electronically, and the FSF is aimed at protecting the rights of people who use software. Neither is aimed at protecting tech workers.
- watwut 9y agoAlso, even many leftists dont share FSF goals and opinions or dont care about them. FSF have few very specific goals they work towards.
- burntsushi 9y agoAre you trying to contrast the EFF and FSF with some other politically neutral cause or organization? If so, what or who? Why do you think they are politically neutral?
- 9y ago
- thescribe 9y agoThe tech solidarity is at odds with the progressive causes. I would probably join a solidarity group, but I would not join one that pushed causes other than 'tech worker interests'
- ThrustVectoring 9y agoYeah, same here. I'm not willing to stick my neck out for putting tech money into progressive causes (or conservative causes, for that matter). I'm willing to stick my neck out for better working conditions, retirement plans, professionalism standards, and fairness in equity compensation.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- eropple 9y agoAnd do you think that you can really do that without working with other people? I'm not the biggest fan of Tech Solidarity, but they understand, at least, that we (folks who work, as opposed to folks who own) are more in it together than we're not. Labor history bears this out; they can read a map.
- ThrustVectoring 9y agoOf course not. I simply recognize that pushing political agendas both alienates natural economic allies, and opens the door to co-opting the organization for things of no benefit to tech workers as a class. Like, I don't give a fuck if people understand broad overarching concepts of solidarity and togetherness. Maybe I'm just a huge sperg, but what I want is concrete work on making tech work better. Make a flyer explaining stock compensation and how shady employers will structure things to screw you over, and publicize the shit out of it so that employers can't claim ignorance. Name-and-shame employers for having equity compensation terms so bad that they grants are effectively worthless. Something.
- pjc50 9y ago> I'm willing to stick my neck out for better working conditions, retirement plans, professionalism standards, and fairness in equity compensation. That is a progressive cause, no?
- xupybd 9y agoI'm not sure we need more progressive activism in tech. After the way the James Damore thing was handled I'm starting to think maybe tech workers are safer keeping their political beliefs between them and the ballot box. I think people should be free to hold any political belief, but are wise to separate work and politics.
- rectang 9y ago"The personal is political." Injustice cannot be compartmentalized away.
- xupybd 9y agoI agree to an extent but let me put it like this. I'm very conservative, to the point that many at my work place would disagree with the way I live and others around me live. So I'm not super open at my work place. I like my co workers and I enjoy working with them despite being on opposite sides of the political spectrum. This is only possible because we silently agree to disagree on those topics by not bringing them to work.
- rectang 9y agoThe phrase "The personal is politial" is associated with second-wave feminism. I never expected to see it applied to James Damore. Something to think about for both of us. ;)
- dionidium 9y agoI know you mean you say that injustice should not be compartmentalized away, but it's worth making this explicit. History tells us unequivocally that it absolutely can be.
- ianbicking 9y agoIt's always safer to be less political. It's safer not to be political in your professional life, and not to be political in your personal life. It's safer to look after yourself. If you actually care to act civically, if you care about your political beliefs, then you might want to consider the impact of what you do. What you do in your personal life is likely to be much less socially impactful than what you do at work. If you are not concerned about your impact then it doesn't matter.
- good-econ1351 9y agoThanks Trump for the huge economic boost (sorry Paul Krugman!) Enjoy resisting, i'll be enjoying a growing economy and the tears of hyperbolic tech pussies.
- dang 9y agoSince I suppose this may not be obvious to everyone, we ban accounts that troll like this.
- dtornabene 9y agoAbsolutely shocked, shocked there is such a dearth of understanding, let alone endorsement of an organizing push in the tech sector on HN. fwiw I'm actually farther to the left of mace, and I disagree substantially with some of his positions, but there are few issues in such dire need of exposure and support. Here's to another year of work and a deeper foundation laid. Cheers to those of you doing this work, you are noticed, your work is not in vain.
- dang 9y agoSuch perceptions of HN are, as far as I can tell, in the eye of the beholder. People with different politics just find different samples to consider representative (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15585780 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15585780, https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment&query=by:dang%2013110004 https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=...). The statistical distribution known as HN isn't consistently political. But there is a contrarian dynamic. As soon as a theme appears, other commenters start posting objections to it. Once those appear, then contradictions of the contradictions show up (often with comments that begin "I can't believe that HN..." or some such). Circle of life on the internet.
- dtornabene 9y agowhile I appreciate who you are, I've also been on this site almost since the very beginning. I almost never comment, and didn't start commenting for literally years because of the quite obvious political/economic biases of the main contributors, which has seemed in the long run to have held rather steady. There are outliers, of course, but I'd be willing to bet that the proportion of highest voted commenters identifying as pro-labor, let alone critical or hostile to capital, is going to be vanishingly small. especially given that it was originally called Startup News (or something along those lines). Grahams politics are also well known, and I've actually asked him, myself, directly, about them at a well known conference. I'm also a little weirded out that someone who seems as scientifically/mathematically literate as you would link to a couple of comments as if the story of HNs political biases would be summed up or even broadly illuminated that way. Again, I know who you are, I know what a pain in the ass the work you do here is, I just think that maybe you're a bit too close to the sun to see this one. My 2 cents.
- 75dvtwin 9y agoCulture is something that top senior leadership is responsible for. And in that regard, they also have to lead by example. If senior leadership represent mono-political-views, and their actions are representative of their views, then the rest of the organization will act the same and we feel the need to act the same. So if (or rather 'when') senior leadership in US tech company (or a non tech company, like a bank) was mocking Trump and his supporters, you can be sure that employees not sharing those views, would be feeling unsafe (in the sense of keeping their job/promotion opportunities/word-of-mouth effects). Anti-Trump crowd tends to call their views and policies 'progressive', their positions on labor force/visa as 'inclusive' their unacceptance of opposing view as 'fight against bunch of '..isms''. -- A side point.. It is unfortunate that politicians, their media propaganda arm, (and trial lawyers) take such an active role in 'wordsmithing' that, they pollute the meanings of the words. To the point, those words feel 'dirty' or 'less impactful' to be used (because they are now 'loaded' ).
- confounded 9y agoSo... Organize!
- idlewords 9y agoThe idea that top leadership is responsible for culture is exactly what makes organizing in tech so exasperating. Tech workers can have their own culture, their own priorities, their own views on what is ethical, important, and valuable in life. And they can come together in defense of those values in a way that senior management must understand, accept, and respect. That ability to come together, organize, and prevail is something people gave their lives for. It mattered to them and should not be something we give up.
- donw 9y agoPerhaps a better way to phrase things is that top leadership is responsible for creating a set of environmental conditions where the right culture can thrive and grow. A not-insignificant chunk of that is in choosing the right people, which is more than just selecting for raw ability. It's a mix of having enough skills to contribute, and having the ability to rapidly adapt and upskill on top of that, but it's also being collaborative and working to strengthen the organization at all levels, and being kind and considerate of others. The way that you structure your organization has a huge impact on all of those things. Stack ranking? Kiss collaboration goodbye. You've just put every team member at odds with their peers for their very survival. Purely top-down performance reviews? People will put more effort into being visible to their managers than in being helpful to their peers. And so on it goes with interviews, onboarding, etc. All of these things matter hugely, and they all very much flow from the top of the organization.
- wav-part 9y agoI think it need to be resaid: Do we make world a better place by progressing technologically/scientifically or socially ? There is really not much time for both. No offence to those who do later, but I like to believe that we do former here. Please correct me if I am wrong. Working together for a tech is beautiful endeavour completely oppositie to a political movement.
- pjc50 9y agoTechnical progress without social progress is the standard road to dystopia. At best this is China. At worst it's Saudi Arabia: glittering cities of the mega-wealthy built by slaves. You cannot say that something is "better" without considering how you're evaluating that and for whom it's better.
- wav-part 9y agoI think you mistook who we are. By we mean those who already are doing TP, not everyone. That would be everyone here. There are enough people for everything. Some can do TP and others SP. If you are capable of doing TP then doing SP is inefficient use of resource.
- quotemstr 9y agoI object to the postmodern relativism embedded in your comment. "Better" can be universal in science and technology. Cleaner energy, faster processors, and less disease are not socially constructed forms of bullshit. These improvements are real. Technical progress, in fact, is the only progress. Moral fashions comes and go, but we remember new scientific principles and how to apply them. Far too often, I see people try to slow the development of technology to suit the current moral fashion. That infuriates me: technology improves the human condition far more than moralizing ever has, and slowing technology development creates incomprehensible amounts of human misery.
- matt4077 9y agoHow was the invention of chemical weapons "universally better"? And where would you rather life: In a world with the technology of today, but the value system of 1438. Or in a world with today's system of law and human rights, but with the technology of 1438?
- peoplewindow 9y agoI've enjoyed Ceglowski's talks but he says a lot of things that just are clearly wrong in this article. "When you have a monopoly you can’t really have a consumer boycott," Ceglowski said. "People can’t realistically not use Google or Facebook at this stage" What? People can't not use Google or Facebook? I use Bing sometimes, it works fine, and of course you only really need to use search engines at all if your job requires it. And lots of people don't use Facebook, or used to use it and no longer do. This statement is just so clearly and factually false it is disappointing. For progressives like Ceglowski, organizing tech workers is ... about pressuring companies to do better on a range of issues, from sexual harassment in the workplace, to user privacy and security, to election integrity "Election integrity" presumably meaning that he wants the tech industry to control what people see about politics and politicians, lest they accidentally vote for the wrong guy. As for doing more on progressive agendas ... the big tech firms are all notoriously controlled by an extremist "progressive" agenda already. How exactly does this guy expect Google to do even more than it already does on things like privacy and security, or sexual harassment in the workplace? They fired Damore for having the audacity to point out that years of bending over backwards to recruit more women had failed to make much difference because women don't study CS at the same rate - a verifiable fact that upset a bunch of fundamentalist feminists. The idea that the tech industry needs to unionise to force tech firms to be even more Clintonite, globalist and to try and control elections is tremendously disturbing. My respect for this guy has plummeted.
- tptacek 9y agoNo, the tech labor force needs to organize to force tech firms to operate in ways that respect the majority of their employees, rather than ignoring them entirely.
- quotemstr 9y agoThat sounds good, but in practice, such organization will amount to the destruction of the meritocracy and the elevation of a certain set of political views to the status of job requirements. A tech union would, I think, inevitably devolve to the kind of organization that denies the existence of skill differentials.